HoUinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



D S13 
.W3 
Copy 1 



Continuous Mediation Without 
Armistice 



A Development of the Idea of a Continuous Conference of 

Neutral Nations, which has occurred independently 

to others besides the author of the Pamphlet. 

by 

JULIA GRACE WALES, 

delegate from the University of Wisconsin to the Inter- 
national Congress of Women, at The Hague. 



WOMAN'S PEACE PARTY 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 

116 South Michigan Avenue 
Chicago, 111. 



.W3 



SUMMARY. 



It is suggested that a Conference of Neutral Nations be 
called to sit at least as long as the war shall last, for the purpose 
of continuous and independent mediation with or without 
armistice and if necessary without the specific permission of the 
belligerents; such conference to consider and submit simultane- 
ously to the warring powers reasonable propositions based on 
principles most favorable to the establishment of a permanent 
peace, and to continue to seek by the method of submitting 
simultaneous standing proposals and by inviting suggestions 
from the belligerents, some basis of settlement which may appeal 
to all as worthy of consideration. 



Continuous mediation by a neutral conference would co- 
ordinate the thinking of the belligerent peoples; it would con- 
centrate and render articulate the intellectual and moral forces 
of the world. 



D. of D.^ 
OCT/ 1919 



CONTINUOUS MEDIATION WITHOUT 
ARMISTICE 



^ 



Can a means be found by which a conference of the neutral 
powers may bring the moral forces of the world to bear upon 
the present war situation, and offer to the belligerents some 
opportunity, involving neither committal to an arbitrary pro- 
gramme nor compromise of the convictions for which they are 
fighting, to consider the possibility of peace? 

In answer to this question there is offered here a plan for 
Continuous Mediation without Armistice. 

When great crises have arisen before, mankind has too often 
gone through them blindly and paid the costliest price for its 
lessons. It is one of the conventions of war that once blood 
has been shed, no further rational consideration of the ques- 
tions at issue shall be attempted. Today if our scientific spirit 
and intellectual development are worth anything, we should 
be able, under the stress of emergency, to break through the 
paralysis of tradition and seek a rational way out, before the 
inexorable forces of nature shall have wrung from us the 
uttermost farthing. 

Let us imagine for the sake of argument that all the nations 
now fighting were to awake tomorrow morning in their right 
minds, able to survey the wreck already caused, to sum up 
the suffering, the human loss, the economic loss; able each to 
comprehend the motives that have driven the other into battle ; 
able to realize the futility of vengeance, the unwisdom and 
wrong of trying to crush or humiliate a race, the folly of con- 
tinued competition, the advantages of co-operation. What under 
these circumstances would be the natural thing to do? Or, 
again, let us suppose that the neutral nations came to their 
senses-; for is it not possible that they too have been paralyzed 
by a traditional mode of thinking? Suppose that they were able 
to attack the problem with utter honesty, simplicity, and cour- 
age. What would be the natural thing for the neutral nations 
to do? 



It is the general conviction that so far the neutral govern- 
ments are without sufficient opportunity to bring any definite 
influence to bear on the war situation. The belligerents distrust 
each other too much for armistice. And they see nothing to be 
gained by mediation at this stage, for it seems to them that a 
speedy settlement would mean compromise, and compromise 
would mean that hostilities would have to be resumed in the 
near future. Obviously, then, if the neutral powers were to 
bring their official influence to bear at present, they would have 
to mediate without armistice and ivithout the specific permission 
of the warring powers, and in such a way as not to endanger 
neutrality, and would have to make a proposition that would 
not involve the evils of compromise. 

In view of the foregoing considerations, what, we ask again, 
would be the natural thing for the neutral nations to do — those 
neutral nations to whom the task of thinking openmindedly for 
the world is, for the time being entrusted? The natural thing 
for them to do would be to come together in conference and 
endeavor to frame a reasonable proposition. They would append 
to it all conceivable arguments for its adoption, every possible 
appeal to the self-interest of every warring nation. They would 
then submit the proposition to the governments of all the warring 
nations simultaneously, together with the following question : 

Will you agree to adopt or consider the accompanying 
proposition as a basis of peace if and when the governments 
of the other warring powers will agree to do likewise? 

The proposition itself would have to be worked out in detail 
by experts. It would be an attempt to discover those principles 
which underlie the welfare of all and which would constitute a 
foundation for permanent peace. It may be that the conference 
would have difficulty in agreeing upon the terms of the initial 
standing proposal. In that case several proposals could be put 
forward at the same time, representing various theories of 
sound settlement. 

If any government should reply in the negative, reply in- 
definitely, or refuse to reply at all, the neutral powers would 
place before it the following requests: 

(1) if at any time while the war continues, you are will= 
ing to adopt or consider our proposition, or a modified form 
of our proposition, as a basis of peace provided the other 



warring powers will do likewise, we beg that you will notify 
the conference of the neutral powers. 

(2) !n the meantime the conference of the neutral powers, 
WHICH WILL SIT WHILE THE WAR CONTINUES, will 
be grateful to receive any information which you may care 
to give as to your ultimate wishes — that is, as to the maxi= 
mum which you desire to obtain — in order that the confer- 
ence may be aided in an effort to discover at the earliest pos- 
sible moment a plan of settlement such as may appeal to all 
as worthy of consideration. 

The conference would then proceed to frame and put for- 
ward further standing proposals. 

It is now evident and should be carefully noted that, for 
the lack of a better term, the word mediation is here extended 
in meaning to include more than such formal mediation as 
implies the acquiescence of the belligerents. Let us repeat that 
even if the belligerents were unwilling to accept mediation, the 
neutral conference would not confijie itself to offers of mediation 
but would, begin at once to frame and put forward standing 
proposals based on principles favorable to the establishment of 
a permanent peace. 

The immediate advantages of such a course of action from 
the point of view of the neutral nations would be (1) that it 
avoids the necessity of securing an armistice or the permis- 
sion of the warring powers to mediate; (2) that it avoids the 
necessity of passing judgment on the past; (3) that it endan- 
gers no one's neutrality; (4) that it gives an opportunity to 
ascertain the attitude of the belligerents by an appeal to the 
future; (5) that it would put forward a radical plan free from 
the evils resulting from compromise — a plan which, if it could 
shorten the present war, would tend also to prevent similar 
wars in the future. 

Now what practically could such a course of action on the 
part of the neutral powers be expected to accomplish? 

P^IRST, what is the minimum gain that could be expected with 
■*■ reasonable confidence? The minimum gain would be the 
lifting of the programme of pacifism into the realm of serious 
political consideration. As a proposition made seriously from 
governments to governments, it would gain a hearing, it would 
have a psychological effect, such as no private propaganda could 



6 



ever give it. It would focus the thought of the world at least 
momentarily on international righteousness. It would give a 
concrete expression to the inarticulate passion of all idealists 
both in the peaceful and the troubled lands. And if ever in the 
world 's history there was dire need of such a common expression, 
it is now. 

By voicing an international political faith, the movement 
would tend, furthermore, to give a new solidarity to popular 
sentiment in those lands whose population is made up of many 
races. For instance, it would relieve large numbers of Ameri- 
cans of European birth or ancestry from an intolerable sense of 
estrangement from many of their fellow Americans. It would 
enable them to join hands in one great task and to weld into one 
enthusiasm their affection for their fatherland, their loyalty and 
devotion to America, their friendship for the whole world. Hence 
the racial diversity of the United States would be rendered one 
of the most potent forces making for peace. 

And should the neutral nations of the world accept the invi- 
tation of one of their number to send representatives to a con- 
ference, such a deliberative body, sitting as long as the emergency 
continues, would present a spectacle of profound significance — 
one that would go far to restore the shaken faith of humanity 
and enable it to set its face with new hope toward the goal of 
ultimate "World Federation. 

As to the question what is the most that the plan might 
accomplish, we should hesitate to base serious argument upon 
the answer. Yet it may be worth while to consider for a moment 
some of the forces which might conceivably be brought into 
action. First, what might the proposition gain from the motives 
of self-interest (1) in peoples, (2) in governments? 

OINCE the initial standing proposal is not a matter of secret 
^^ diplomacy, but is made openly before the face of all people, 
it will come to the knowledge of the people of the belligerent 
countries through the press. 

In the labor element, the churches, especially the Society 
of Friends, the women's organizations, and the greater part of 
the commercial interests, we have a body of opinion already 
strongly disposed to look with favor upon a proposal for a set- 
tlement that will make for permanent peace. Now, the tempta- 
tion to sound thinking which such a proposal presents will 



increase steadily in force with the increase of economic pres- 
sure. Moreover, the plan will enlist on its side the argument 
of fear itself, the strongest force which is at present making for 
war. The great argument with which Great Britain has 
appealed to her people and colonies is the danger that defeat 
would mean at the least increased armaments in the future, mili- 
tary enslavement, the weakening of the democratic principle. 
This is the appeal that has marched out the armies of the 
British Empire. But to such a motive our proposition would 
make an appeal yet stronger, for it would promise security not 
only from the aggression of a victor but from the revenge of a 
vanquished foe. It would promise freedom, nationality, democ- 
racy in no uncertain terms. 

It will be objected that at present, nevertheless, national 
hatred is too bitter to permit the sane consideration of peace 
proposals. We cannot too much emphasize the point, however, 
that national hatred is born of and nourished by fear. So far 
as the twentieth century is concerned, pure hatred is too non- 
material and at the same time negative a motive to keep masses 
of people fighting in the face of severe economic pressure. If 
fear be eliminated, hatred will die a speedy and natural death. 
Moreover, it would be easy to bring evidence gathered from 
partisan periodicals to show the compunction which each side 
feels in destroying the other, the kind treatment accorded to 
prisoners, the friendly relations between the soldiers in the 
trenches. All would be thankful to return if they could to ' ' nor- 
mal humane living." Again, the contemplation of a proposal 
based on the principles of universal welfare will of itself tend 
to diminish national hatred and to hasten the time when settle- 
ment will be possible. And this goal may be nearer than we 
think. It is fear, we repeat, rather than hatred which keeps 
the nations fighting, fear which is strong enough for a time to 
overcome the great counter force of economic pressure. But 
economic pressure is a force inexorable and final, which must 
sometime and in some way bring a cessation of hostilities. It 
is the one formidable ally of those who would fight the battle of 
peace. 

The very emulation of the belligerents should spur them to 
adopt the creditable course. They have all turned to the neu- 
tral peoples eager in self-justification. Each nation says that 
it is not to blame; that it did not seek the war; that it was 



8 

forced to fight in self-defence immediate or anticipatory; that 
it has to contend with those with whom it would fain have been 
friendly; that it has no motive of cruelty, only that motive of 
tenderness to its own which for the time being has rendered 
necessary a stern closing of the heart to pity for others; that 
the means it has used are justified by a vital end and a desperate 
necessity; that the motive is ultimately the preservation of an 
ideal and the welfare of the human family. If these protesta- 
tions are sincere — and it is by no means clear that we have 
adequate reason for doubting them — it is not strange that we 
have felt unable to commit ourselves to any final judgment of 
the moral attitude of any party to the conflict. We cannot esti- 
mate past motives; we cannot distinguish perfectly between the 
actions of peoples and the actions of governments, between the 
responsibility of one nation and that of another. And there is 
a sense in which all are to blame. We are all human together, 
stumbling out of darkness into a twilight of imperfect knowl- 
edge. Nevertheless it is true that by their appeal to world opin- 
ion, the belligerents have laid themselves open to any ethical 
challenge we choose to propose to them; and there is a test of 
sincerity to which they may even now be brought and to which 
they have given us the right to bring them — one that lies not 
in a scrutiny of the past but in an appeal to the future. 

The strength of such a radical proposal as that for a League 
of Peace, for example, lies in the fact that it offers a good bar- 
gain. While the concessions it demands of each government are 
large, the advantages it presents, even from the point of view 
of what Mr. G. Lowes Dickinson calls the ' * governmental mind, ' ' 
are by no means small. All peoples would gain (1) immediate 
relief from intense economic pressure and excruciating suffering, 
(2) comparative freedom from military taxation, (3) security 
from future wars, (4) relief from the prospect of further loss 
of trade. All governments would gain a desirable exit from a 
difficult situation. The world would gain the safety of west- 
ern civilization, which is now threatened. Hence, there is no 
question that the appeal to the people of all countries would 
be very strong, especially after economic pressure had become 
extreme. At the least, the governments of all countries would 
find it difficult, once the argument of self-defense was wrested 
from them, to keep the people enthusiastic for the continuation 
of the war. 



"DUT since the best hope of a peace movement lies in the will 
of the people, what is gained by appealing from govern- 
ment to government instead of through the propaganda of peace 
organizations to the people themselves? First, as we have seen, 
government action is the most effective action because the most 
national, the most immediate, and the most conspicuous. Sec- 
ondly, by such government action as we propose, we give the 
people of any country the invaluable aid of a ready-made propo- 
sition. We have relieved them of the difficulties, especially great 
in time of war, of initiation, formulation, organization, of get- 
ting a hearing with their own government. The campaign of 
those individuals and groups who desire to ally themselves with 
our movement is already organized. All they have to do is to 
importune their government to say yes. And thirdly, we have 
put into their hands this argument, that the plan has already 
been brought from the realm of the ideal into the realm of 
practical politics, that there is already in the world one govern- 
ment at least that regards it seriously as a political expedient. 

Through the plan of independent and continuous mediation 
without armistice — that is, through making simultaneous stand- 
ing proposals to all — there is thus a chance, slight indeed and 
dependent upon the turn of circumstances, of materially affect- 
ing the duration and the outcome of the war. Be it observed 
that such a device would bring a steady psychological pressure 
to bear on the belligerent governments; it would keep them 
under perpetual temptation to the right course. At present each 
side is resolved to fight practically to extermination rather than 
yield. Our proposal would hold before each, one hope of escape 
from indefinitely continuing a self-destructive struggle. Such 
are the possibilities of practical appeal on the ground of the 
sordid motives — fear, pride, desire for relief from suffering. 

But there are other motives than sordid ones to be consid- 
ered. Humanity is not a shallow thing. When we think of the 
motives of mankind in the mass, we get into the habit of thinking 
of those motives which we can estimate and turn to practi- 
cal account ; and these are the lower motives ; the higher motives 
are incalculable. Idealism is from the point of view of practical 
politics an uncertain and therefore a negligible quantity; but 
it exists. That it is not a practical force is due to the fact that 
we have not yet learned to liberate and use it. And today it is 
singularly active, singularly accessible. Though in neutral 



10 



couutries moral conditions are approximately normal, in the 
countries which are at war they are very far from normal — not 
abnormally low, but almost superhumanly high. The very unity 
and cohesion of a race has carried the individual beyond his 
normal range. Each people is as a single family ; there is neither 
high nor low, rich nor poor, but a brotherhood of men. No man 
counts his life dear unto himself. All are fighting with unques- 
tioning devotion for homes and fatherland, for language, insti- 
tutions, traditions, for all that they hold most sacred and most 
dear. Whatever we may believe about the folly or the deliber- 
ate wrong-doing of governments, the fact remains that each 
people is in a state of spiritual exaltation. Individuals are 
everywhere thinking, feeling, suffering, facing the ultimate 
issues of life and death. Their senses are sharpened, their spirits 
sensitized to the significance of what had become commonplace, 
to familiar landscapes, to the associations of home, to the ideals 
of the race, to its heroism and its poetry, to the symbols of its 
religion. This thing is like a tidal wave of the sea ; it has drawn 
deep. And in the hour of their aspiration and their agony, 
they have turned to us, beseeching our understanding and ap- 
proval. Powerful and sophisticated peoples have cried out to 
us with the helplessness anl simplicity of children, as if we for 
the time being represented to them that World Spirit of rea- 
son and wisdom which alone can rescue them from irreparable 
tragedy. 

We have only to turn to their own periodicals to know that 
each nation, in the confused complexity of its motives, has been 
swept by a genuine passion of self -justification — a passion that 
indicates in each a sense of loyalty to a standard of national 
conduct. It is our unique opportunity to propose to each the 
supreme ethical challenge which, whether or not any can rise to 
the point of accepting it, must for ourselves and for them endure 
through the coming centuries as a tangible expression of the 
international ideal. 

Now between the maximum for which we hope and the mini- 
mum which we may expect to obtain, there is one possible gain 
that should not be overlooked. Even though ideal proposals be 
rejected, a conference of continuous mediation would supply 
a means of defining the issue and hastening the discovery of 
such a basis of settlement as would normally be reached at the 
end of the war. The device of such a conference might well be 



11 

adopted at the beginning of any war, for any problem that 
justifies bloodshed is worthy of the collective, systematic think- 
ing of the race. And it is possible for each party to a conflict 
to be somewhat mistaken as to what the other supposes the main 
issues to be. Any confusion of issues must result in a tragic 
waste of effort. Especially is there danger of such waste in the 
present war. In the vastness of the issues involved, in the nature 
of the deadlock, in the interest which the neutral powers have in 
finding a solution, the world problem is unprecedented and may 
well demand a pioneer method of treatment. Noble races are 
engaged in a death struggle, kindred peoples who have no real 
quarrel, who would rather be friends, but who cannot come to 
an understanding because they have no true opportunity to com- 
municate. So far as the peoples are concerned, the war began 
on a few days' notice. There was no time to talk then; there 
is no chance to talk now. There will be no opportunity to be 
rational until all the nations are practically exhausted unless a 
machinery can be devised to do the thinking and interpreting 
on neutral ground. Hence a conference of continuous ynediation 
proceeding hy a method of simultaneous standing proposals, 
might prove to have a practical value independent of the willing- 
ness of the powers to accept an ideal plan. Nevertheless it must 
not be forgotten that whatever modifications may be introduced 
for discussion later by the belligerents themselves, the initial 
standing proposal of the neutral powers should be based on some 
such universal principles as we have already indicated, for, as 
we have seen, (1) such a proposal is an expression of the ideal 
and is therefore worth holding before the imagination of the 
world ; (2) it is a neutral proposal because it is based on abstract 
principles; (3) it approaches a sound bargain because it is based 
on principles which govern the welfare of all, and as a sound 
bargain it may ultimately produce a practical effect on the 
attitude of the governments. 

But let us repeat that it is on the ground of the minimum 
result that may be expected from prompt action that we de- 
sire chiefly to base our argument. We wish to emphasize the 
point that the awful force of human anguish will be to a cer- 
tain extent dissipated and wasted unless it can in some way be 
concentrated to drive the idea of world peace into the minds of 
the people. It is the task of the neutral powers to put the 
psychological screws in place and let nature turn them by the 



12 

relentless pinch of physical fact. If a single belligerent govern- 
ment could be induced to commit itself, though of course con- 
ditionally, to the sound programme, that were a hitherto un- 
paralleled triumph for the cause of pacifism. But even if no 
such result could be effected, even if the only result were the 
crystallizing of an avowedly national sentiment in one neutral 
country and of popular opinion in other lands, the effort would 
be worth while. And that any government should have taken 
an historic stand for the radical right would be for all time a 
source of pride and thankfulness to its people. 

"OUT there is a third question to be asked: For the individual 
believer in the cause of peace, w^hat, under actually existing 
circumstances, is the natural thing to do? "We may say confi- 
dently that there are more than the prophet's seven thousand 
in every neutral country who believe ardently in the cause of 
peace and are willing to put forth their utmost effort in its 
support. To them we make our appeal. If the course of action 
which we have outlined is indeed the reasonable one for the 
neutral nations to follow, if it contains any promise of help, 
direct or indirect, immediate or future, to the cause of peace, 
then the natural thing for the individual to do is to advocate 
that course in season and out of season, by personal propaganda, 
through the press, through public meetings, by resolutions of 
societies, through open letters to persons of authority. When 
he has striven by every means at his command to gain for the 
matter the serious consideration of the neutral people and the 
neutral governments, then and not till then has he delivered his 
soul. 

/^UR task is a definite one. It is the task of persuading the 
^-^ neutral governments to immediate action. We shall on 
every hand encounter the opinion that when the belligerents are 
ready for mediation, they can make the move for it without 
further interference from us ; that we shall gain by waiting until 
they are in a mood to listen to us. Let us in conclusion sum 
up the principal arguments against this view: (1) Though 
opposed to armistice and not consciously ready for mediation, 
the belligerents may in reality be more open than either we or 
they themselves are aware to the appeal of common sense. (2) 
They dread speedy settlement because they dread compromise ; 



13 

but a proposal, for example, for the adjustment of disputes by 
appeal to the principle of nationality' does not involve the great 
evil of compromise — namely, the danger of a speedy resumption 
of hostilities. (3) The warring nations themselves are unwilling 
to initiate a movement for peace ; and in the meantime the peo- 
ples are powerless to communicate. For the sake of the welfare 
of all, for the sake of a dispassionate examination and a uni- 
versal interpretation, the neutral nations must work out plans 
and propose them. (4) If a standing proposal is likely to exert 
a psychological pressure that will tend to hasten the time of set- 
tlement, then it is a grave wrong to delay putting it before the 
belligerents. Though it may not be immediately accepted, yet 
the sooner it is made, the sooner it will take effect. Dare we 
delay to act when promptness of action may in the long run 
save even a week of bloodshed and suffering? (5) A radical 
proposal made simultaneously to the warring powers would tend 
to promote not only speedy settlement but sound settlement. It 
would at the least begin the task which must be begun sometime 
of bringing the force of sane public opinion to bear upon the 
conservatism of governments; and now while public opinion is 
reinforced by economic pressure within the nation and by danger 
from without, it may be easier to make that force felt than it 
will be later. (6) The only alternative to prompt action is 
passive acfjuiescence in the indefinite continuation of the war — 
a war that is daily weakening the vitality of Europe, sweeping 
away the slow gain of centuries, "mortgaging the future of 
civilization," and bringing inestimable loss upon our children 
and our children's children. 

Shall we wait until these blind and futile forces have spent 
themselves? The time to make a resolute effort to save our 
world is noiv, before the destruction has gone any further. 



'The principle of nationality is here understood to mean the prin- 
ciple that any racial unit should have freedom to develop according to 
its own genius, in so far as its development does not interfere with 
the equal freedom of every other racial unit. Such freedom can be 
accorded within any unit of government. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 934 801 9 # 



w 



f 



i\ 



